Recommended Posts

There can be nothing like "Christian Objectivism" because it is a contradiction. Not only that Christianity is a religion and hence employs the means of faith and objectivism that of reason, but there is so much difference in ethics and everything. Christianity advocates altruism and Objectivism, rational selfishness. There is no connection

"Christian Objectivism" can be whatever the labeler puts inside, contradicts this or that or what. The contradiction is putting that package into "Objectivism," which is the different category. Isaac Newton could be called a "Christian Objectivist," but there's no need to bother. All of this, of course, is gross simplicity regardless. The big beef is with the label, except it's not going anywhere. Very bad and objectionable taste, both for Christians and Objectivists. I think Rand would say her philosophy has nothing to do with "mysticism" (add in emphatic Russian accent).

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You can take it further, that Jesus saw around him not just enforced sacrifice of the innocents to their oppressors, but also the blind, accepting SELF-sacrifice of their god-given, independent minds (their "souls") to others' moral authority, power and whim.


And so, 'Jesus said': "I will show you the evil of what you do to yourselves, by my own self-sacrifice - and let me be the last".

I can't ever imagine Jesus would have said that though... It would seem extremely contradictory to most other things that he allegedly taught and practiced.

http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/harris/the_christian_law_of_self-sacrifice.htm

https://bible.org/seriespage/mark-9-surrender-and-self-sacrifice

http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Self-Sacrifice

In many aspects, Christ was the ultimate preacher precisely of the dogma of altruism, promoting sacrifice and self-sacrifice in particular.

This was a continuation of the idea that sacrifices had to be made to that entity (God) which was considered the source of the world and of anything intangible or "spiritual", such as what was at the time considered (but not yet termed as such) "objective morality", as often described by theologians today. Only this time around it more explicitly also included sacrificing to God through sacrifices to the creation itself, to all other men on earth in good faith and the conscious disservice of ones own material living standards, of ones entire life.

Perhaps the best example of all of this is found here

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+12

And then there is this of course. "Submitting to all governing authorities" and "not gratifying the flesh".

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&version=NIV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can take it further, that Jesus saw around him not just enforced sacrifice of the innocents to their oppressors, but also the blind, accepting SELF-sacrifice of their god-given, independent minds (their "souls") to others' moral authority, power and whim.

And so, 'Jesus said': "I will show you the evil of what you do to yourselves, by my own self-sacrifice - and let me be the last".

I can't ever imagine Jesus would have said that though... It would seem extremely contradictory to most other things that he allegedly taught and practiced.

A most unserious speculation from me, Thomas. Sometimes I have fun changing around old established principles, just to look at them in a new light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On February 10, 2014 at 5:31 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

I am having a problem here. How can there be Christian -Objectivism-. The major premise of Christianity is that Christ sacrificed himself for the remission of our sins. Such an act is maximally altruistic. How does one resolve this perplexity?

Ba'al Chatzaf

That Christ supposedly "sacrificed" his life as being "maximally altruistic" is debatable.  According to the Scriptures, did not Christ rise after three days?  Were he to have remained in the grave and ceased to exist would have been "maximally altruistic, but that's not what happened.  The question you need to be asking yourself is why did he go to the cross?  

As my friend Jacob opined, "I think He is the Ultimate Egoist, doing absolutely all that He does for the sake of enjoying His own greatness.  – Psalm 115:3".    His further thoughts from a Christian perspective (the premise of your initial question) can be read here:  http://www.thechristianegoist.com/2013/06/22/the-galt-like-god/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 11, 2014 at 8:26 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

In addition Christianity is poisoned by the concept of Original Sin. That pernicious meme colors ALL of Christianity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Again, you have a misunderstanding.  "Original Sin" is not a universal doctrine in the Christian church. It is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic church and maybe the Lutherans, but that's about it.  The majority of Christian churches teach that man has a selfish and rebellious nature.  Anyone who has had children knows this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 16, 2014 at 9:37 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

I was referring to times past. At present only Orthodox Jews (a minority of a minority) believe in the Chosen People nonsense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are correct on this.  The same applies to Christianity. There are few things the different denominations agree upon.  I belong to a presbyterian denomination.  There are over 40 different presbyterian denominations in the U.S., each with differing governing bodies and ecclesiastical practices.  Sadly, many non-religious groups take example from the fringe and use that as an example to critique, hence engage in a straw man argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points gentlemen, these are straw man arguments...

Another poor analysis by Ayn by the way.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to recommend a book.

I'm halfway through it, so some of the things I say right now might change when I finish. I doubt it but I still have to make room for the possibility until I finish reading the book.

The Soul of Atlas: Ayn Rand, Christianity, a Quest for Common Ground by Mark David Henderson.

Henderson is a younger writer (I think he's in his 30's or so), or at least he is young at being a writer. His profession is in the financial industry. The greenness shows in a few places, but this is also a very touching personal memoir loaded with diligent consideration of intellectual and moral ideas.

He chose one hell of a painful subject to base his book around: having two fathers with the same mother and the resentment this caused him.

One father, the biological one, is a Christian pastor. Henderson calls this father "Dad." The other is John Aglialoro, the producer of the Atlas Shrugged movie trilogy and upcoming TV series. He calls his stepfather "John." The story, as he tells it, is that he was living life just fine with his mother and father until his mother fell in love with Aglialoro. Then the divorce happened and his mother married Aglialoro and Henderson's inner world came crashing down.

But, over time, he adapted as all kids do and had many conversations with both dads. The book centers around those conversations and Henderson's gradual emotional adaptation to the upheaval in his life.

It's kinda cool for us out here in O-Land to get a glimpse of Aglialoro--who nobody knows anything about--at the dinner table day after day holding forth about Randian ideas and how important they are for the world. Henderson, as his resentment gradually weakened, got an education in Objectivism just by eating. :) Also, his biological dad seems to be a very good person of high character, someone I would be proud to know. 

So far, there doesn't seem to be a lot of anger between the two dads, they come off as very good men, although pain comes through at times in Henderson's narrative. That's as it should be because divorces are always painful.

This book is an intellectual journey where Henderson asks both dads the same important questions about life and records their answers filtered through his perceptions and growing outlook. He ends up coming to peace for his own life with a personal philosophy that uses the dynamic tension inherent in the conflicts between Objectivism and Christianity, takes the best of both worlds, and integrates them.

Agree or disagree, it doesn't matter to me. I love what he did. He made these ideas work for him and used his own mind to do it. This is so much better than taking a blueprint from others and molding himself according to that.

If anyone is interested in thinking through how to do Objectivism and Christianity at the same time, this book may not have all the answers (except for, maybe, Henderson :) ), but it does have a lot of the right questions. And it treats the process of looking for the answers with tenderness and critical thinking-through, not the all-or-nothing abruptness of dogma I keep seeing at times on both sides.

Thinking through this stuff on your own is just as important as the ideas themselves. This process is not to be dismissed with the wave of a hand, but instead, wisdom starts here. That is one of the main themes I got from Henderson in this very interesting, challenging and heartwarming memoir. 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I want to recommend a book.

I'm halfway through it, so some of the things I say right now might change when I finish. I doubt it but I still have to make room for the possibility until I finish reading the book.

The Soul of Atlas: Ayn Rand, Christianity, a Quest for Common Ground by Mark David Henderson.

Hi Michael:  Thanks for the recommendation. I read that book a couple years ago.  It is very poignant. While the two positions will likely never be reconciled, there is enough common ground for the two positions to be allies against the nihilist progressives who seek to destroy initiative and excellence and make man subject to the state.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

He chose one hell of a painful subject to base his book around: having two fathers with the same mother and the resentment this caused him.
 

..................................................................................................................

So far, there doesn't seem to be a lot of anger between the two dads, they come off as very good men, although pain comes through at times in Henderson's narrative. That's as it should be because divorces are always painful.

This book is an intellectual journey where Henderson asks both dads the same important questions about life and records their answers filtered through his perceptions and growing outlook. He ends up coming to peace for his own life with a personal philosophy that uses the dynamic tension inherent in the conflicts between Objectivism and Christianity, takes the best of both worlds, and integrates them.

Agree or disagree, it doesn't matter to me. I love what he did. He made these ideas work for him and used his own mind to do it. This is so much better than taking a blueprint from others and molding himself according to that.

.......................................................................................................................

Thinking through this stuff on your own is just as important as the ideas themselves. This process is not to be dismissed with the wave of a hand, but instead, wisdom starts here. That is one of the main themes I got from Henderson in this very interesting, challenging and heartwarming memoir. 

Michael

Thanks to both of you, and welcome back Mike[I enjoy the "good works" that you engage in].

This is very interesting to me.  I will get that book, you guys will have to split the commission.

That book treats his psychological "tension" with a similar approach that the originator of Whole Foods did in that panel discussion with Barbara and Nathan that I posted.  His "synthesis" argument was excellent.

It also makes a lot of common sense to me.

Finally, as I have "preached" before, here on OL, the decision made by the Objectivist originators to refuse to organize with citizens politically, was critical to the failure of the "formal" Objectivist movement. 

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now